Gun control can be done the right way

Stephen BlackOn Borrowed Time

Published: Saturday, December 29, 2012 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, December 28, 2012 at 12:38 p.m.

I have a loaded firearm right beside my bed. In easy reach. I will use it to give intruders a change in attitude if need be. Yet I am totally against easy access to firearms. Does this make me pro- or anti-gun?

Another school shooting! People are outraged, and rightly so. God forgive us if we ever do cease being outraged.

In our grief and anger, letters to the editor have been written and editorials published and read. The shooting will continue, and more innocents will die.

Listen to me, brethren, and listen well. Do you know why politicians do nothing about easy accessibility to firearms? It's because gun control is a hot topic and one that, if not played wisely, will cost the politicians votes. Cynicism? No, merely common sense.

Those folks who believe that every Tom, Dick and Mary Jane should be armed to the teeth, no matter what, are a huge voting bloc. Millions of votes. Why? Because they belong to the National Rifle Association. I used to be a member before it was hijacked by the present right-wing extremist thugs.

The NRA brainwashes its members into believing any firearm control will result in jackbooted storm troopers coming into our homes and confiscating our weapons along with the silverware.

The NRA leadership teaches this so it can safeguard its phony-baloney positions and make lots of shekels while doing this.

What I am saying is that there is a practical way of fighting easy access to firearms. Instead of unfocused anger, letter writing and all the rest, what sensible people need is a national group to represent them. (If there is already one, I don't know about it and would welcome information.)

The only way to "reason" with politicians over the gun-control issue is to vote in bloc, just like the right-wing con artists who head the NRA. That way, when politicians are mulling over the questions about gun control, they will have to make a choice about which group has the most voting power.

Folks, when it comes to gun control, there are a thousand facets to it. Some want all guns taken away except for law enforcement. This position is as wacky as the belief that any gun control is against God and the Constitution.

Neither position is true, but wacky as they are, there are a lot of people running loose on the streets. We have the most recent election campaigns to prove this.

One of the most common-sensical gun controls is the outlawing of access to automatic assault firearms. There is no logical reason that anyone needs automatic weapons. Not hunters, for sure. If you need a automatic firearm to kill your prey, then join the military. It will give you one free of charge. I know. I had to carry an automatic weapon for more than a year in the days before the M-16 became available.

Marines toted around one of the best weapons ever made. The M-14 was a semi-automatic (a round was fired with each trigger squeeze). An armorer, however, could adjust it to total automatic fire. I was stuck carrying extra magazines and a bipod for the bloody thing when I was tapped to be automatic rifleman of our four-man fire team. It was cursedly heavy, but it could kill lots of people and kill them fast.

Would "gun control" stop the mass killings? There are those who point out that a hammer or a knife also can kill. This is pure speciousness. I counter this by asking these folks which one would they rather face in the hands of a jerk with murder in his heart — a knife, a hammer or a firearm?

Could the Connecticut killer have killed as many people had he not had a firearm? The simple horrible fact is that easy access to firearms facilitate killing the greatest number of people in the shortest time possible. This is a sure-fire recipe for mass slayings. We must remove the ability once and for all.

Man has been killing man since Cain killed Abel, so the chances are good that murder will always be with us. What we can do, however, and what we should be doing, is making it more difficult to accomplish mass slayings.

That can and must be done by common sense rather than hysteria on both ends of the political spectrum. Gun control done the correct way could at least reduce the number of killed when evil reigns supreme.

It is only a start — but any start is better than the backward direction toward hell we are heading in now.

Proper gun control can be done. It must be done. God save the innocents.

<p>I have a loaded firearm right beside my bed. In easy reach. I will use it to give intruders a change in attitude if need be. Yet I am totally against easy access to firearms. Does this make me pro- or anti-gun?</p><p>Another school shooting! People are outraged, and rightly so. God forgive us if we ever do cease being outraged.</p><p>In our grief and anger, letters to the editor have been written and editorials published and read. The shooting will continue, and more innocents will die.</p><p>Listen to me, brethren, and listen well. Do you know why politicians do nothing about easy accessibility to firearms? It's because gun control is a hot topic and one that, if not played wisely, will cost the politicians votes. Cynicism? No, merely common sense.</p><p>Those folks who believe that every Tom, Dick and Mary Jane should be armed to the teeth, no matter what, are a huge voting bloc. Millions of votes. Why? Because they belong to the National Rifle Association. I used to be a member before it was hijacked by the present right-wing extremist thugs.</p><p>The NRA brainwashes its members into believing any firearm control will result in jackbooted storm troopers coming into our homes and confiscating our weapons along with the silverware. </p><p>The NRA leadership teaches this so it can safeguard its phony-baloney positions and make lots of shekels while doing this.</p><p>What I am saying is that there is a practical way of fighting easy access to firearms. Instead of unfocused anger, letter writing and all the rest, what sensible people need is a national group to represent them. (If there is already one, I don't know about it and would welcome information.)</p><p>The only way to "reason" with politicians over the gun-control issue is to vote in bloc, just like the right-wing con artists who head the NRA. That way, when politicians are mulling over the questions about gun control, they will have to make a choice about which group has the most voting power.</p><p>Folks, when it comes to gun control, there are a thousand facets to it. Some want all guns taken away except for law enforcement. This position is as wacky as the belief that any gun control is against God and the Constitution.</p><p>Neither position is true, but wacky as they are, there are a lot of people running loose on the streets. We have the most recent election campaigns to prove this.</p><p>One of the most common-sensical gun controls is the outlawing of access to automatic assault firearms. There is no logical reason that anyone needs automatic weapons. Not hunters, for sure. If you need a automatic firearm to kill your prey, then join the military. It will give you one free of charge. I know. I had to carry an automatic weapon for more than a year in the days before the M-16 became available.</p><p>Marines toted around one of the best weapons ever made. The M-14 was a semi-automatic (a round was fired with each trigger squeeze). An armorer, however, could adjust it to total automatic fire. I was stuck carrying extra magazines and a bipod for the bloody thing when I was tapped to be automatic rifleman of our four-man fire team. It was cursedly heavy, but it could kill lots of people and kill them fast.</p><p>Would "gun control" stop the mass killings? There are those who point out that a hammer or a knife also can kill. This is pure speciousness. I counter this by asking these folks which one would they rather face in the hands of a jerk with murder in his heart — a knife, a hammer or a firearm?</p><p>Could the Connecticut killer have killed as many people had he not had a firearm? The simple horrible fact is that easy access to firearms facilitate killing the greatest number of people in the shortest time possible. This is a sure-fire recipe for mass slayings. We must remove the ability once and for all.</p><p>Man has been killing man since Cain killed Abel, so the chances are good that murder will always be with us. What we can do, however, and what we should be doing, is making it more difficult to accomplish mass slayings.</p><p>That can and must be done by common sense rather than hysteria on both ends of the political spectrum. Gun control done the correct way could at least reduce the number of killed when evil reigns supreme. </p><p>It is only a start — but any start is better than the backward direction toward hell we are heading in now.</p><p>Proper gun control can be done. It must be done. God save the innocents.</p>